Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linksys routers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linksys routers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And:

Delete all. WP is not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all WP is not a product catalogue, but our definition of a product catalogue is something that lists prices. We have articles about products, and these are reasonable examples of such. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD argument. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my argument. My contention is that since we do not prohibit articles about products, and that this article does not meet our own definition of a catalogue, then the rationale given in the nomination is not valid. Given no valid delete rationale, I am voting keep. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, failing which Merge. Linksys routers are WP:NOTABLE.Kittybrewster ☎ 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are they notable? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. These products are significantly notable. CyberCat (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any evidence of notability given the use of unreliable sources such forums, wikis and the manufacturers website etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Linksys WRV54G router, keep the rest. Product reviews are significant coverage. Linksys routers currently makes no (referenced) claim of notability, but such references are available as Linksys WRT54G series shows. Proper referencing should thus be possible. FCC sources should be reliable as far as they reference technical specifications, same goes for the OpenWRT wiki. However, those sources pretty much list every available device; For considerations of notability they are therefore worthless, and an article like Linksys WRV54G router where they are the only sources cannot stay in its current version. --Pgallert (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also happy with the merge as suggested by W Nowicki. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Linksys WRV54G router is the only article that satisfies WP:N with the sources it already lists (CNET, Linux Journal, eWeek). You probably mean the other way around. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge other articles into Linksys routers. Individual models come and go so are rarely notable by themselves. But a general history would be useful, since this is a "leading brand". I would say one large table instead of zillions of stubby sections that just parrot the specs. Prepend with some prose that talks about how the line evolved. This is what I am proposing for other products as a general compromise. The downside is it might take a while since (ironically) the interest in the computer networking project comes only in spurts. W Nowicki (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Linksys routers. The WRT54G is a pretty iconic model and has a more extensive article and should probably be kept (keep) separate. —Ruud 11:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This exactly Terrx (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally agree --KiR (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linksys routers is proposed for deletion as well, in case you didn't notice. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This page serves as an importance reference point for hackers and enthusiasts alike. Jmccrohan (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, notable and popular routers. Hey Mid (contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Topics pass WP:N. Linksys WAG300N router, Linksys WRV54G router and Linksys WRTP54G router may be more suitable for merging to Linksys routers, being too short, but at least Linksys WRV54G router has enough references listed to pass WP:N (CNET and Linux Journal are reliable independent sources, and so is eWeek), and I suspect enough can be found for the other ones. This nomination is mostly of the WP:NOEFFORT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Practically all of their products get at least a product announcement article in the IT media, which is more than enough coverage for the main overview article, e.g. [1] [2], PC World / Washington Post, [3] PC Magazine etc. There are 4000+ Google news archive references, most of them quite useful as WP:RS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, of course. These Linksys pages are very valuable, and is the one thing that I use Wikipedia for repeatedly. Complex and diverse data is brought together in a usable way.
Keep. They look fine, refs fine. They don't float boats for many, but they're routers so we can't expect anything except technical data. Szzuk (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just what about Linksys WRT54G series is in violation?? dwfunk4475 19:48, 08 Aug 2011 (MSD)
Comment This trend of grouping a bunch of AFDs into one because the subjects are related is a real nuisance, in my opinion. It multiplies the task of determining what the consensus is for each article a hundred fold. Good luck to whoever closes this - my guess is they will give in to the temptation to just keep everything. causa sui (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. By the way, WRTP54G, the only aricle wich lacked WP:RS at the time of nomination was also very easy to expand, including an AP story about its security flaws in Vonage service. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.